THE SAFE
CITIES INDEX
2015
Assessing urban
security in the
digital age
A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit
Sponsored by
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Contents
1
About the report
2
Executive summary
4
Introduction
Urban Africa: Can African cities keep up with the pace of change?
6
8
The Safe Cities Index: Overview
Going for gold: Tokyo shapes up for the 2020 Olympics
9
11
Category 1: Digital security
Caught on camera: Getting candid about CCTV
13
15
Category 2: Health security
Megacities: Keeping 10m people safe
16
18
Index of indexes: Where is the best place to live?
20
Category 3: Infrastructure safety
Safe pair of hands: Profile of San Francisco’s first chief resilience officer
21
24
Category 4: Personal safety
Gated communities: A false sense of security?
25
28
Conclusion
29
Appendix 1: Table: Safe Cities Index
31
Appendix 2: Table: Safe Cities Index by income
34
Appendix 3: Table: Index of indexes
35
Appendix 4: Safe Cities Index methodology 36
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
About the
report
The Safe Cities Index 2015 is an Economist
Intelligence Unit report, sponsored by NEC. The
report is based on an index composed of more
than 40 quantitative and qualitative indicators.
These indicators are split across four thematic
categories: digital security; health security;
infrastructure safety; and personal safety. Every
city in the Index is scored across these four
categories.
Key
Overall Index
Digial security
Health
security
Infrastructure
safety
Personal
safety
Each category, represented throughout the
report by the icons shown in the key, comprises
between three and eight sub-indicators. These
indicators are divided between inputs, such as
policy measures and levels of spending, and
outputs, such as the frequency of vehicular
accidents. A full explanation of the methodology
is contained in Appendix 4.
The Index focuses on 50 cities (see box
over the page for the full list and regional
breakdown) selected by The Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU), based on factors such
as regional representation and availability of
data. Therefore, it should not be considered a
comprehensive list of the world’s safest cities (ie,
a city coming number 50 in the list does not make
it the most perilous place to live in the world).
The analysis of the Index results, conducted by
the EIU, was supplemented with wide-ranging
research and in-depth interviews with experts
in the field. Our thanks are due to the following
2
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
people (listed alphabetically by surname) for
their time and insights:
l Alan Brill, senior managing director and
founder of the global high-tech investigations
practice Kroll
l Jonathan Brown, programme manager of city
system integration, Future City Glasgow
l Vivien Carli, co-author of Practical Approaches
to Urban Crime Prevention, International
Centre for the Prevention of Crime
l Tim Chapman, director of the infrastructure
design group at Arup
l Carlos Dora, co-ordinator in the department
for public health, environmental and social
determinants of health, World Health
Organisation
l Boyd Cohen, director of innovation and
associate professor of entrepreneurship,
sustainability and smart cities, Universidad
del Desarrollo, Chile
l Bruno Fernandez, head of security, Metro de
Madrid
l Frederick Krimgold, director of the disaster risk
reduction programme, Virginia Tech
l Tom Lawry, director of worldwide health,
Microsoft
l Dan Lewis, head of the urban risk reduction
programme, UN Habitat
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
l Peggy Liu, chairperson, Joint US-China
Collaboration on Clean Energy (JUCCCE)
l Yoichi Masuzoe, governor of Tokyo
l Toshiro Muto, CEO of the Tokyo organising
committee of the Olympic and Paralympic
Games 2020
l Patrick Otellini, chief resilience officer, the city
and county of San Francisco
l Brian Quinn, adviser, Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment
(Cabe) at the UK Design Council
l Josep Rius, chief of staff to the deputy mayor
of Barcelona
l Andrew Smyth, professor of civil engineering
and engineering mechanics, Columbia
University
l Sandra Švaljek, deputy mayor of Zagreb
l Sameh Naguib Wahba, manager for urban
development and disaster risk-management,
World Bank.
The report was written by Sarah Murray and
edited by James Chambers. Amie Nagano and
Takato Mori conducted additional interviews.
Chris Clague built the Index. Gaddi Tam
was responsible for design. The Economist
Intelligence Unit bears sole responsibility for
the content of this report. The findings do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.
Safe Cities Index: List of 50 constituents by region
(listed in descending order of rank)
Asia-Pacific
North America
Europe
Toronto
Stockholm
Brussels
New York
Amsterdam
Paris
San Francisco
Zurich
Milan
Montreal
Barcelona
Rome
Chicago
London
Istanbul
Los Angeles
Frankfurt
Moscow
Washington DC
Madrid
Tokyo
Singapore
Osaka
Sydney
Melbourne
Hong Kong
Taipei
Seoul
Shanghai
Central & South America
Santiago
Buenos Aires
Lima
Rio de Janeiro
Sao Paulo
Mexico City
3
Shenzhen
Middle East & Africa
Tianjin
Abu Dhabi
Beijing
Doha
Guangzhou
Kuwait City
Bangkok
Riyadh
Johanesburg
Tehran
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
Delhi
Mumbai
Ho Chi Minh City
Jakarta
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Executive
summary
Cities are already home to a majority of people
on the planet. The current level of urbanisation
ranges from 82% of the population in North
America to 40% in Africa. But all regions are
expected to follow this trend towards greater
urbanisation over the next three decades. Lagos,
the most populous city Nigeria, is predicted to
double in size in the next 15 years.
However, cities should not take continued
population growth for granted. As the UN’s
latest World Urbanisation Prospects study points
out, some cities have experienced population
decline because of, among other things, low
fertility rates, economic contraction and natural
disasters. The population of Seoul, the capital of
South Korea, has shrunk by 800,000 since 1990.
Likewise, the safety of cities can ebb and flow.
New York recorded a record high of 2,245
homicides in 1990, equating to six murders per
day. Since then the population has grown by over
1m people, while homicide rates have fallen.
The murder rate in 2013 stood at 335, a historic
low, moving New York below Chicago—a city with
under one-third of New York’s population.
As some threats recede, others mature. The
frequency of terrorism and natural disasters
has changed the nature of urban safety: power,
communications and transport systems must
4
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
be robust and able to withstand new external
shocks. Meanwhile, new risks emerge. Cyber risk
has accompanied the advent of the digital age.
Urban safety is therefore a critical issue that
is set to become even more important over
time. Securing public safety means addressing
a wide—and evolving—range of risks. The Safe
Cities Index aims to capture this complexity. The
Index tracks the relative safety of a city across
four categories: digital security, health security,
infrastructure safety and personal safety. The
Index’s key findings include the following.
l Tokyo tops the overall ranking. The world’s
most populous city is also the safest in the
Index. The Japanese capital performs most
strongly in the digital security category, three
points ahead of Singapore in second place.
Meanwhile, Jakarta is at the bottom of the
list of 50 cities in the Index. The Indonesian
capital only rises out of the bottom five places
in the health security category (44).
l Safety is closely linked to wealth and
economic development. Unsurprisingly,
a division emerges in the Index between
cities in developed markets, which tend to
fall into the top half of the overall list, and
cities in developing markets, which appear
in the bottom half. Significant gaps in safety
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
exist along these lines within regions. Rich
Asian cities (Tokyo, Singapore and Osaka)
occupy the top three positions in the Index,
while poorer neighbours (Ho Chi Minh City
and Jakarta) fill two of the bottom three
positions.
l However, wealth and ample resources are
no guarantee of urban safety. Four of the
five Middle Eastern cities in the Index are
considered high-income, but only one makes
it into the top half of the Index: at 25 Abu
Dhabi is 21 places above Riyadh at number 46.
Similar divides between cities of comparable
economic status exist elsewhere. Seoul is 23
positions below Tokyo in the overall ranking
(and 46 places separate the two on digital
security).
l US cities perform most strongly in the digital
security category, while Europe struggles.
New York is the only US city to make it into the
top ten of the overall index (at 10). However,
it is third for digital security, with three of the
four other US cities in the Index (Los Angeles,
San Francisco and Chicago) joining it in the
top ten. Meanwhile, European cities perform
relatively poorly. London, at 16, is the
highest-ranking European entry in the digital
security index; Rome is the lowest, at 35.
l Leaders in digital security must not
overlook real-world risks. Los Angeles falls
from 6th place in digital security to 23rd
for personal safety. San Francisco suffers
a similar drop, falling from 8th to 21st.
For these cities—both home to high-tech
industries—a focus on technology and cyber
security does not seem to be matched by
success in combating physical crime. Urban
safety initiatives need to straddle the digital
and physical realms as the divide between
them blurs.
5
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
l Technology is now on the frontline of urban
safety, alongside people. Data are being
used to tackle crime, monitor infrastructure
and limit the spread of disease. As some cities
pursue smarter methods of preventing—
rather than simply reacting to—these diverse
security threats, a lack of data in emerging
markets could exacerbate the urban safety
divide between rich and poor. Nonetheless,
investment in traditional safety methods,
such as bolstering police visibility, continues
to deliver positive results from Spain to South
Africa.
l Collaboration on safety is critical in a
complex urban environment. Now that a
growing number of essential systems are
interconnected, city experts stress the need
to bring together representatives from
government, business and the community
before threats to safety and security strike.
Some cities have appointed an official to
co-ordinate this citywide resilience. With
the evolution of online threats transcending
geographical boundaries, such co-ordination
will increasingly be called for between cities.
l Being statistically safe is not the same as
feeling safe. Out of the 50 cities, only Zurich
and Mexico City get the same rank in the
overall index as they do in the indicator that
measures the perception of safety among
their citizens. Urban citizens in the US, for
instance, tend to feel less safe than they
should, based on their city’s position in the
Index. The challenge for city leaders is to
translate progress on safety into changing
public perceptions. But cities also aspire
to be attractive places to live in. So smart
solutions, such as intelligent lighting, should
be pursued over ubiquitous cameras or gated
communities.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Introduction
SimCity was one of the first computer games
to achieve mass popularity. First released in
1989, game players are given tax revenue with
which to plan and build an urban environment.
The city only develops if the player meets
certain conditions, such as providing essential
healthcare services and establishing sufficient
energy supplies. From time to time disasters such
as earthquakes sweep across the city, forcing
players to rebuild.
When you think
about smart
cities, they have
the potential of
attracting the
interest of smart
hackers
Alan Brill, senior managing
director, Kroll
As SimCity demonstrates, managing cities can
be extremely complex. Get it wrong and your city
becomes an unhealthy, crime-infested place in
which citizens feel physically and emotionally
insecure. Get it right and you can attract global
executives, affluent tourists, creative minds
and entrepreneurial adventurers—all of whom
contribute to a city’s economic, social and
cultural dynamism.
Since the game’s launch a quarter of a century ago,
the safety challenges for genuine city planners and
leaders have only increased. Rapid urbanisation
is swelling city populations (see chart on page 7),
straining existing infrastructure and adding to the
human cost of accidents and disasters. Increased
global mobility hastens the spread of disease in
densely populated cities. Demographic ageing
requires alterations to the built environment.
Severe weather and rising sea levels, meanwhile,
expose cities to flooding and tsunamis.
Building greater resilience into urban
infrastructure has therefore become increasingly
6
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
urgent. But cities are also facing entirely new
safety challenges. The concept of the “smart city”
is revolutionising the way in which everything—
from transport systems to water and energy—is
managed and delivered. At the same time, a
growing dependence on digital technology to
deliver everyday services brings with it new
vulnerabilities.
Malicious programmers can bring about largescale disruption of computer networks on which a
city depends. (The main character of Watch Dogs, a
computer game released in 2014, is a vigilante who
can hack into Chicago’s computer network to cause
chaos.) Ordinary citizens, meanwhile, face new
urban threats in the form of Internet fraud and
identity theft. “When you think about smart cities,
they have the potential of attracting the interest
of smart hackers,” says Alan Brill, senior managing
director at Kroll and founder of the consultancy’s
global high-tech investigations practice.
Against this altered landscape, The Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU) has undertaken a study
designed to assess the safety of 50 cities around
the world. The Safe Cities Index examines
four categories of city safety and security:
digital security, health security, infrastructure
safety and personal safety. Separate
chapters investigate each of these categories
individually—although these should not be
viewed as mutually exclusive. At some stage every
city will need to develop a comprehensive and
inclusive approach to urban safety.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Home invasion
Snapshot of city populations worldwide
(% urban population)
82%
North America
80%
Latin America and the Carribean
73%
Europe
Current
urban
population:
71%
Oceania
48%
Asia
3.9bn
Africa
40%
Breakdown by type of city
One half of the world’s urban population live in settlements with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants. The other half are grouped into the following
types of cities:
Megacities (10m+)
Large cities (5-10m)
Number of megacities
has nearly tripled since 1990
20 more cities
will become ‘large’ by 2030
Total population:
Total population:
453m
Percentage of urban population:
Percentage of urban population:
Example in Index (rank):
Example in Index (rank):
Medium-sized cities (1m-5m)
Small cities (500k-1m)
Represent the biggest city
for 79 countries
Account for majority of
the world’s fastest-growing cities
Total population:
Total population:
12%
(30) Shanghai
827m
Percentage of urban population:
20%
Example in Index (rank):
(6) Sydney
Source: United Nations; World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights
7
300m
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
7%
(16) Chicago
363m
Percentage of urban population:
11%
Example in Index (rank):
(20) Frankfurt
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Urban Africa: Can African cities keep up with the pace of change?
None of the world’s regions are urbanising as fast as Africa.
At current rates of expansion, the UN estimates that Africa
will cease to be predominantly rural by 2030.1 Therefore,
African cities are playing an increasingly important role in
the economic development of the continent.
safety and security on extremely tight budgets, low-cost
solutions are critical. In South Africa, for example, Cape
Town’s township of Khayelitsha has initiated a Violence
Prevention Through Urban Upgrading4 that uses small
community centres to tackle crime. Built along pedestrian
routes, the “active boxes”, as they are known, are staffed
with a caretaker 24 hours a day and offer services such as
crèches and youth services.
This presents opportunities to improve living standards for
millions of urban citizens—but not without overcoming many
challenges. For a start, rising metropolitan populations are
putting severe pressure on essential services such as power,
sanitation and water supplies. These services do not exist
at all in many urban areas—particularly in slums—forcing
residents to turn to unreliable informal service providers.2
In Sub-Saharan Africa alone the slum population is 199.5m
people, according to UN Habitat, the United Nations agency
for human settlements.
However, the level of progress is difficult to measure.
Johannesburg (47) is the only African representative
selected to appear in the Safe Cities Index owing to the
relatively poor quality of data available in the region. The
South African city performs most poorly on health security
(also 47), although the city does slightly better (position
39) on personal security. As Africa’s economy develops,
data should be collected systematically. Armed with this
information, it will be possible to challenge the enduring
perception that crime and insecurity still dominate a
large number of African cities.
Encouragingly, this data drought
is now attracting significant global
attention.
Meanwhile, streets choked with cars and trucks are creating
unhealthy levels of pollution in cities such as Ghana’s
Accra or Nigeria’s Lagos. Wood
biomass burning and pollution from
(Rank) Score
industrial plants, which are often
Score/100
located in cities, exacerbate the
50 city average
problem. Without policies to change
Johannesburg (47) 56.26
this, Africa’s cities will become
100
unstable and unsafe environments.
80
Some solutions are being explored.
Cities such as Nairobi and Cape
Town are developing bus rapid
transit systems (BRT). Pioneered
in Curitiba, Brazil, and Bogotá, the
Colombian capital, BRT systems run
along dedicated routes not used
by other vehicles. With their speed
and efficiency, the systems can help
reduce the number of cars on the
streets.
60
40
20
(39) 61.3
0
(45) 60.7
Elsewhere, encouraging examples of crime prevention have
emerged. In Lagos, the establishment of a public-private
partnership to mobilise resources from government, the
private sector and private citizens (the Lagos State Security
Trust Fund) is shifting the focus from policing to a broader
community response. Strategies have included improved
social services and the redevelopment of public spaces.
Initial results were promising. In a 2009 evaluation the
Lagos state government found that levels of insecurity and
perceptions of crime problems had fallen.3
Given that African cities are often struggling to increase
8
In July last year a report from the
Centre for Global Development and
the African Population and Health
Research Centre highlighted weak
national statistical systems in many
(44) 52.9
parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, where
even basic information about births
and deaths can be shaky.5 A few
months later a report commissioned
by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretarygeneral, recognised the dangers
of this data gap between rich
(47) 50.2
and emerging economies, even
acknowledging the impact it is
having on the ability to measure the progress of the UN’s
high-profile Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).6 A
strategy to close these data gaps and launch an African data
revolution is expected to play a key part in the successor to
the MDGs, which are due to end in 2015.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/2014-revision-world-urbanization-prospects.html
http://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/housing-slum-upgrading/
3
Margaret Shaw and Vivien Carli, eds, Practical Approaches to Urban Crime Prevention, International Centre for
the Prevention of Crime, 2011.
4
http://i2ud.org/2013/02/violence-prevention-through-urban-upgrading-in-khayelistha-south-africa/
5
Delivering on the Data Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa, Centre for Global Development and the African
Population and Health Research Centre, July 2014.
5
A World that Counts: Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development, UN Secretary-General’s
Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for Sustainable Development (IEAG), November
2014.
1
2
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
The Safe Cities Index: Overview
We need to prepare
for an even larger
scale of attacks
Toshiro Muto, CEO, Tokyo
Organising Committee of the
Olympic and Paralympic Games
Tokyo (1) comes top in the overall Safe Cities
Index 2015. The Japanese capital performs most
strongly when it comes to the security of its
technology assets: it tops the list in the digital
security category, three points clear of Singapore
in second—the widest gap at the top of any of the
four categories.
Tokyo also ranks in the top five for personal
safety and infrastructure safety, despite
suffering regular earthquakes and being home
to the world’s largest urban population7 (38m,
according to the UN8).
Safe Cities Index
2015
Top 20 cities
Rank
http://esa.un.org/unpd/
wup/Highlights/WUP2014Highlights.pdf
7
UN figures use a concept
of urban agglomeration
to provide population
estimates for the entire
metropolitan area of
Tokyo rather than the city
proper, as defined by its
administrative boundaries.
The official population
figure for the Tokyo
prefecture, published by
Statistics Bureau of Japan
in The Japan Statistical
Yearbook 2015, is 13.3m.
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
City
Tokyo
Singapore
Osaka
Stockholm
Amsterdam
Sydney
Zurich
Toronto
Melbourne
New York
Hong Kong
San Francisco
Taipei
Montreal
Barcelona
Chicago
Los Angeles
London
Washington DC
Frankfurt
By contrast, Jakarta
(50) is bottom of the
overall rankings. The
capital of Indonesia is
third from the bottom
when it comes to
digital security and
infrastructure safety.
Its highest rank is on
health security, at
number 44, although
it falls to the bottom
again in certain subindicators, such as
the number of doctors
per 1,000 people. The
two cities are also far
apart for personal
safety. Although
Jakarta is not the
worst performer when
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
it comes to violent crime, the incidence of petty
crime is high. By contrast, violent and petty
crime affects relatively few residents of Tokyo.
Naturally, there is much else separating these
two cites (see chart). The population of Indonesia
(250m) is double that of Japan (127m), but the
wealth of Japan measured in terms of GDP per
head (US$36,000 at purchasing power parity)
is four times that of Indonesia (US$9,000). This
divide between cities in rich economies and those
in emerging economies is broadly true for the rest
of the Index.
The top half of the Index is generally occupied
by rich cities from Europe, East Asia and North
America. Meanwhile, the likes of Bangkok (39)
and Ho Chi Minh City (48) join Jakarta in the
bottom half, alongside all of the main cities of
the BRICS economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China
and South Africa): São Paulo (40), Moscow (43),
Delhi (42), Beijing (37) and Johannesburg
(47). But wealth is not a byword for safety: every
Middle Eastern city in the Index falls in the
highest income bracket, yet only one—Abu Dhabi
(25)—makes it into the top half.
China’s biggest cities (Shanghai, Shenzhen,
Tianjin, Beijing and Guangzhou) cluster together
in the lower half of the list, with Shanghai (30)
the best performer of the group. Latin American
cities also fail to make it into the top half of
the ranking. The continent’s best performer is
Santiago (28), with Buenos Aires (31) not far
behind.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Perception vs reality
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, citizens should be
more safety-conscious than they are (see chart).
Where do citizens feel safest and how does this compare to where they are actually
safest?
As cities become ever more complicated
ecosystems, a safe environment must be created
for citizens across the entire landscape, targeting
crime online as much as on the street. Singapore
(2) comes top of the group of high income
cities (see Appendix 2). The wealthy city-state
offers a practical example of the evolving safety
landscape. Traditional crimes, such as burglary
and theft, are at decade-long lows10. Yet the
overall level of reported crime is being pushed
up by an increase in the number of cyber-related
offences, such as e-mail scams.
Perception of safety
Perception of safety vs Safe Cities Index
(Top 10 cities in indicator; 1=feel safest)
Rank
City
Up or Down (+/-)
1
Osaka
2
Abu Dhabi
23
3
Hong Kong
8
4
Singapore
2
+27
Chicago
5
Tokyo
4
Biggest gap
6
Seoul
18
7
Zurich
8
Taipei
5
9
Doha
20
10
Stockholm
2
Riyadh
-33
6
: Citizens are overly fearful about their safety
: Citizens should be more circumspect about their safety
A tale of two cities
Source: Numbeo crime,
Safety Index
9
http://www.police.gov.
sg/stats/crimebrief2014.
html
10
http://www.zdnet.com/
article/singapore-unveilsplan-in-push-to-becomesmart-nation/
11
10
Perception of safety among city residents is
one of the indicators9 used to build the Index,
falling under the personal safety category.
Often the perception of safety is driven by the
prevalence of violent and petty crime. As our
overall index takes a more comprehensive and
longer-term approach to urban safety, including
new threats such as cybercrime, the ranking of a
city according to the perception of safety among
residents rarely matches its ranking in the Safe
Cities Index.
Indeed, only two cities—Zurich (7) and Mexico
City (45)—feature in the same position for both.
Residents of US cities tend to be more fearful
than their positions in the upper ranks of the
Index suggest they should be. For example, New
York, which is at position 10 in the overall list,
falls to 31 when it comes to perceptions of safety.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
Cyber crime has been identified as a key concern
for local police at a time when the government is
taking proactive steps to improve the safety of its
citizens across online and offline infrastructure.
In 2014, the president of Singapore Tony Tan
Keng Yam set out plans to use technology and
data intelligence to create a “safer, cleaner and
greener” urban environment11, as part of a wider
plan to become a so-called smart nation.
Future-proofed
As the nature of urban safety evolves, even the
top cities city in our Index will have areas to
improve upon. Yoichi Masuzoe, the governor
of Tokyo, has identified several areas to focus
on during his term in office. One is—not
surprisingly— disaster prevention (see Going
for gold: Tokyo shapes up for the 2020 Olympics).
Many areas of Tokyo still contain wooden houses
susceptible to outbreaks of fire. The plan is to
replace these structures with modern residential
and commercial complexes, improving the
city’s resilience to earthquakes. Achieving this
goal without destroying significant parts of the
city’s cultural heritage is certain to complicate
preparations for the 2020 Olympics.
Another area is the environment. “Tokyo’s air
quality has improved dramatically since the
introduction of regulations banning diesel
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Going for gold: Tokyo shapes up for the 2020 Olympics
When Tokyo revealed its eight goals for transforming the city
in time for the Olympic Games in 2020, safety was number
one. This is hardly surprising. The huge earthquake that
struck the north of Japan in 2011, causing a tsunami and
the subsequent reactor meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant, ranks as the costliest catastrophe in
human history, according to Munich Re and Swiss Re, two
global reinsurance firms.
A direct hit to Tokyo, a city of 38m people, would be even
more devastating. The Japanese capital’s last major
earthquake happened in 1923, so another event of similar
magnitude is expected soon. A year after the Fukushima
disaster Munich Re increased its risk assessment of a
significant earthquake hitting Tokyo. Swiss Re ranks Tokyo as
the city most at risk from natural disasters.
The city’s vision for 2020 includes creating community-level
disaster management teams and retrofitting buildings to
withstand earthquakes. One in every five buildings in Tokyo
was built before 1981, making them comparatively more
vulnerable to earthquakes. According to Toshiro Muto, CEO
of the Tokyo Organising Committee of the 2020 Olympic and
Paralympic Games, safety will play a critical part in the basic
planning document that the committee is submitting to the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International
Paralympic Committee (IPC) in February 2015.
Of course, Japan has always been prone to earthquakes. As
Tokyo strives to build a “sophisticated, disaster-resistant
city”, new safety challenges have emerged for host cities.
Acts of terrorism overshadowed the Olympic Games in Munich
in 1972 and in Atlanta in 1996. The scale of the event has
also grown in the half-century since Tokyo last staged the
Olympics. Over 10,000 athletes from 204 nations competed
in more than 300 events at London 2012—double the size of
Tokyo 1964. Increasingly, however, the source of security
threats will be much less visible.
For Mr Muto, one of the elements that will determine the
success or failure of the Tokyo Games is the battle against
cyber terrorism. “At the time of the Olympic Games, the
London 2012 website was subject to over 200m cyberattacks—tens of millions at the opening ceremony,” he
says. “We need to prepare for an even larger scale of attacks
and develop systems strong enough to protect our Games
system.” However, he knows that a lot can change by the year
2020. Technology is developing at a rapid pace, making many
of the lessons from the Summer Olympics in London (18)
potentially irrelevant.
Competing on safety
The two previous Olympic cities vs the next two Olympic cities
Beijing (37)
London (18)
Rio De Janeiro (35)
Tokyo (1)
100
80
60
40
20
0
11
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
During the buildup to the Olympics
the organising
committee will face
global scrutiny
of its plans and
preparations. The
organisers of the
London Games
received plaudits for
constructing new
stadiums and other
infrastructure with
zero casualties—a
novelty for recent
Games. Yet this
was soon forgotten
when a bus carrying
foreign media to
the Games collided
with and killed a
cyclist, highlighting
a weakness in the
city’s safety record.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
A similar level of scrutiny is now on Rio de Janeiro (35),
the host of the 2016 Olympics, as it transforms its transport
system, ports and urban slums (favelas). Media attention
has focused on water pollution affecting its world-famous
beaches. The untreated human sewage being pumped
straight into Guanabara Bay, the location for sailing events,
was already causing concern even before schools of dead fish
began floating on the surface.
The Brazilian city has a year to ensure that pollution does
not blight the Games. Creating a lasting legacy may be more
difficult. Beijing invested heavily in tackling air pollution
ahead of the 2008 Olympics. The temporary clean-up,
involving factories closing and cars ordered off the roads,
worked for the Games. Yet six years later the city had to
resort to similar tactics when it hosted its next big event:
the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) meeting in
November 2014. Rare blue skies greeted heads of state only
weeks after many runners in the Beijing Marathon had worn
masks to protect themselves against the toxic air.
Meanwhile, in London, the number of cyclists being killed or
seriously injured has been increasing. The city has invested
in more cycle paths as the cycling population has grown, but
most are just roadside strips of blue paint. Now the mayor of
London is pushing for segregated cycle lanes, inspired by the
Netherlands. Close to £913m (US$1.5bn) has been allocated
to improving cycling safety over the next decade.
Effecting improvements to road safety or pollution is clearly
a challenge for city governments. But few would envy Tokyo’s
task of preparing for an unstoppable natural disaster.
Nonetheless, the Japanese capital is the safest city in our
index and the safest Olympic city—over 20 points and 30
places ahead of Rio de Janeiro in the overall index. Thus, the
city has already gone some way towards realising its Olympic
goal of demonstrating its safety to the world.
vehicles with poor emission from urban areas,”
says Mr Masuzoe. “We now need to accelerate our
efforts to enhance the atmospheric environment
in light of the 2020 games.”
The city is currently implementing a number
of initiatives to improve air quality. A major
target is reducing traffic congestion. Hence the
construction of three major ring roads around the
city. Other policies include a subsidy for hydrogen
powered vehicles and pedestrian-only areas in the
city centre.
Tokyo’s poorest performance in the Index is in
the health security category, where it ranks 8th
overall. Although it remains in the top ten for
indicators measuring inputs, such as the access
to, and quality of, health services, it falls to
number 17 for outputs in this category, which
incorporate indicators such as air quality and
water quality.
Aside from improvements to air quality, Mr
Masuzoe has a much grander vision to affect
a
social awakening—or, more accurately, a
reawakening—based around recycling and
resource efficiency. Sustainability used to
be
12
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
an important feature of Tokyo’s historical
development, he says.
“Tokyo, called Edo at the time, functioned as one
of the most advanced recycling-based societies
between the 17th and 19th centuries. While we
may have lost our sensitivity to wastefulness
during the period of rapid economic growth
after the Second World War, Tokyo is now reestablishing itself as a city that places strong
emphasis on waste reduction and recycling
measures.”
As part of this recycling resurgence Tokyo has
developed methods for extracting rare earth
materials from discarded digital devices. Finding
a viable solution to this growing mountain of
electronic waste or e-waste will form part of the
evolution of most, if not all, safe cities. As this
report will show, technology is being deployed
across cities to enhance urban safety in each
of our four categories of safety and security:
digital, health, infrastructure and personal.
Cities pursuing these types of investments should
consider the implications for the whole ecosystem
and factor in the entire lifecycle of any project.
After all, a safe city must also be sustainable.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Category 1: Digital security
This category measures a city’s digital security based on factors such as dedicated
cyber security teams (input) and the frequency of identity theft (output)
Safety briefing
North American and East Asian cities dominate
the upper echelons of the list, with four US
cities (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco
and Chicago) in the top ten and four Asian cities
(Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong and Osaka) in
the top five.
Meanwhile, European cities perform relatively
poorly, with London the highest-ranking
European entry at position 16. Rome scores
most poorly among European cities, at 35,
based in part on its ranking in the bottom five in
terms of indicators that measure factors such as
privacy policies and the existence of dedicated
cyber security teams.
“Japan police to launch
national task force against
cybercrime”, Japan Daily
Press, March 29th 2013.
Available at: http://
japandailypress.com/japanpolice-to-launch-nationaltask-force-against-cybercrime-2926076/
12
13
Given Japan’s prowess in the IT sector, it is little
surprise to see two Japanese cities—Tokyo and
Osaka—make it into the top five in this category.
However, while Tokyo is in pole position, Osaka
is ten points below it. The difference between
the two could be explained by the investments
being made in digital security. While Tokyo scores
well when it comes to inputs such as dedicated
cyber security teams, privacy policies and citizen
awareness, Osaka falls far lower in the index on
these measures, coming in at 20 places below
Tokyo.
Yet both cities appear at the top of the index
when it comes to the outputs indicator, that
is, measures such as the sums of money lost
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
(Rank) Score
Score/100
50 city average
New York (10) 78.08
100
80
60
40
(28) 69.45
20
(3) 79.42
0
(16) 84.93
(2) 78.52
through cybercrime and the frequency of
identity theft. National initiatives, rather than
city-level measures, may be helping these two
cities to combat cybercrime. In 2013 Japan’s
National Police Agency announced the launch of
a 140-strong nationwide cybercrime task force to
be deployed in Osaka, Tokyo and other strategic
locations.12
Notwithstanding this strong showing, Japan
has previously come in for criticism for having
a lackadaisical approach to cyber security.
Indeed, Tokyo and Osaka both score poorly on
the sub-indicator measuring public awareness
of digital threats, even though attacks against
state entities and companies are reported to
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Top 10 cities:
Digital security
Rank
Alan Brill, senior managing
director, Kroll
Score/100
Tokyo (1)
87.18
2
Singapore (2)
83.85
3
New York (10)
79.42
4
Hong Kong (11)
78.78
5
Osaka (3)
6
Los Angeles (17)
74.99
7
Stockholm (4)
74.82
8
San Francisco (12)
73.85
9
Abu Dhabi (25)
73.71
10
Are we thinking
about the cyber
vulnerability of
things that have
not traditionally
been cyber?
City (overall rank)
1
Chicago (16)
77
72.9
happen every 30 seconds—twice as frequently
as in 2010.13 A new national Cyber Security Law,
passed in late 2014, is seen as a sign that the
government is now taking the matter seriously,
spurred on by the Tokyo Olympics in 2020.
Cities need to be particularly vigilant against
this type of crime when they host large events,
such as international sporting events or music
festivals in venues where free Wi-Fi services are
vulnerable to attack.
“What we’re seeing is that those gatherings
become attractive to hackers because they know
there will be massive influxes of people,” says
Kroll’s Mr Brill. “The statistics on the number of
people at the World Cup [in Brazil in 2014] who
connected to stadium Wi-Fi was astounding.”
http://www.
businessweek.com/
articles/2014-07-24/
proposed-law-would-fixjapans-lax-cybersecurity
13
http://www.ida.gov.
sg/blog/insg/talent/
strengthening-singaporescybersecurity/
14
Cyber security is one of the key challenges for
Tokyo ahead of the 2020 Olympics, according to
Mr Muto, CEO of the organising committee.
Elsewhere in the Index, other cities have
taken steps to shore up their ability to address
http://cybercellmumbai.
gov.in/html/write-ups/
mumbai-cyber-lab.html
15
14
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
cybercrime. Singapore, which ranks second in
the digital security category, is establishing a
Monitoring and Operations Control Centre to
equip the government with the tools needed
to respond to cybercrime.14 And while Mumbai
falls to the bottom of the list when it comes
to incidences of cybercrime, it moves to the
top in the inputs indicator. In 2004 the city
launched the Mumbai Cyber Lab, a public-private
partnership designed to train the city’s police
officers to investigate cybercrimes.15
Common sensors
Added vulnerability for cities comes in the
increasing reliance on digital technology for
running essential urban services, such as traffic
management. Wireless-enabled sensors fitted
to key infrastructure can generate real-time
data that allow municipal authorities to better
anticipate and solve road congestion. Known as
the “Internet of things”, these new systems are
bringing convenience and efficiency to cities.
However, with these benefits come risks from
hackers, who, if successful in their breaches,
could bring city services to a standstill. Mr Brill
cites the example of computer-controlled traffic
lights. “Imagine if they all went green in both
directions,” he says. “The question is: are we
thinking about the cyber vulnerability of things
that have not traditionally been cyber?”
Despite these risks, technology is now playing a
greater role in city safety across every category
of this Index. As set out in the chapters to
follow, diverse datasets are being called upon for
everything from fighting disease to monitoring
bridges and anticipating crime.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Caught on camera: Getting candid about CCTV
City inhabitants are increasingly on camera.
The number of closed-circuit television (CCTV)
cameras installed around cities continues to
rise, as does the technical sophistication of
these systems. Moreover, citizens are operating
their own surveillance: in cities from Moscow
to San Francisco a growing number of drivers
are using dashboard cameras, or dashcams, to
provide evidence in the event of an accident. But
do round-the-clock digital recordings of almost
every aspect of a city increase the safety and
security of its residents? And if so, at what cost?
Some of the cities in the Index have
aggressively adopted video surveillance.
London has a camera for every six citizens.16
In May 2014 the city began the UK’s largest
trial of body-worn cameras for police officers.17
Madrid has more than 8,000 security cameras
distributed throughout its mass transit system.
Live feeds can be viewed from a wide range of
local command posts in metro stations across
the Spanish capital, as well as from the central
command post, from where all emergencies and
events are co-ordinated.
(Rank) Score
http://www.cl.cam.
ac.uk/~rja14/shb10/
angela1.pdf
16
Score/100
50 city average
Madrid (21) 72.35
100
http://www.
bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/
research-and-reports
17
80
60
40
(33) 65.81
“Effects of Closed Circuit
Television Surveillance
on Crime”, Campbell
Systematic Reviews, 2008.
18
“Global Video Surveillance
Market, Applications and
Management Services
Forecasts”, Electronics.
ca Research Network,
March 2011. Available at:
http://www.electronics.
ca/presscenter/
articles/1391/1/GlobalVideo-Surveillance-Marketto-reach-US-377-billionBy-2015/Page1.html
19
15
20
(28) 60.78
0
(9) 87.28
(11) 75.53
Facial recognition software makes it easier
than ever to identify criminals or fraudsters
picked up on video. But a debate continues to
rage over the balance between security and
privacy. Some say that this kind of surveillance
makes them feel safer. “According to the public
opinion surveys we conduct, users feel just as
safe, or even safer than in the street, a factor
that is closely related to the system of security
cameras, which afford the public greater
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
peace of mind,” says Bruno Fernandez, head of
security at Metro de Madrid.
But privacy advocates and some citizens do
not like the idea that their every move is being
monitored. Moreover, some studies suggest
that CCTV does not in fact have an impact on
levels of crime and violence. Often cited is
research by the Campbell Collaboration, an
international research network. It found that
CCTV schemes in city and town centres, public
housing and public transport did not have a
significant effect on crime.18
In any case, such arguments are not deterring
city governments or the vendors that supply
them. Research by Electronics.ca, an electronics
industry market research network, has estimated
that the video surveillance market will be worth
almost US$38bn by 2015.19 What is more, the
mass rollout of wearable technology, such as
cameras built into eyewear, could mean that
there are millions more mobile cameras on the
streets in the next few years.The debate is likely
to keep rolling.
All the while the security risks are increasing. At
the end of November 2014 national authorities
became aware of a Russian website streaming
live video feeds from thousands of webcams
set up in homes, schools and businesses across
the world, including the US, Japan and many
European countries. Cyber criminals had hacked
into private CCTV and other Internet-connected
cameras using default password settings
readily available online—effectively co-opting
cameras meant to deter crime into a potential
vulnerability.
This increased connectivity has brought the
personal and online realms closer together.
At the same time, the traditional boundaries
between cities are being obscured. Tokyo is
number one in the digital security category,
while Moscow is at number 46 (and bottom when
it comes to measuring the number of infected
computers). Yet as the above example shows,
digital safety in one city does not insulate it
from poor policing or high levels of cybercrime
in another. International co-operation here is
more important now than ever.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Category 2: Health security
This category measures a city’s health security based on factors such as the ratio of
hospital beds to population size (input) and life expectancy (output)
Safety briefing
Zurich is in top position for this category of the
Index. European cities—with their universal
healthcare systems—generally perform well.
Six of the top ten cities in the list are European,
compared with one (Stockholm) in digital
security, three (Zurich, Amsterdam, Madrid) in
infrastructure and two (Stockholm, Amsterdam)
in personal safety. And only one European city
(Milan) appears in the bottom half of the index.
No lower-income city makes it into the top ten,
which is dominated by high- and upper-middleincome cities.
Singapore, a high-income city, drops from
second place overall to 12th for health security.
This is remarkable because the city-state is
often cited as a leader in healthcare. Indeed, it
ranks joint first for its quality of health services,
but falls into the bottom half for the number of
hospital beds and doctors per 1,000 people. It
The challenges of maintaining health security in
any city are substantial. Cities need to be vigilant
against sudden disease outbreaks or natural
disasters such as earthquakes, establishing
robust healthcare facilities and protocols that
mean they are able to cope in the event of a
crisis.
The recent spread of the Ebola virus has
highlighted weaknesses not only in the health
systems of West African cities in the most
severely affected countries (Liberia, Sierra Leone
and Guinea), but also in the US, where the city of
16
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
(Rank) Score
Score/100
50 city average
Zurich (7) 78.84
100
80
60
40
20
(13) 76.62
0
(1) 92.63
(19) 67.04
(1) 79.05
is also out of the top ten for most of the outputs
in this category. For air quality it ranks 17th,
behind London and on a par with Paris.
Top 10 cities:
Health security
Rank
City (overall rank)
Score/100
1
Zurich (7)
79.05
2
New York (10)
78.52
3
Brussels (22)
77.63
4
Frankfurt (20)
77.38
5
Paris (23)
76.95
6
Osaka (3)
76.55
7
Barcelona (15)
76.35
8
Tokyo (1)
76.26
9
Taipei (13)
10
Stockholm (4)
76
75.83
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Dallas made missteps in the handling of the first
person in the country to test positive for Ebola.
[Air pollution] is
driving people
away in droves,
so retention of
talent is a really big
problem
Peggy Liu, chairperson, joint
US-China Collaboration on
Clean Energy (JUCCCE)
But the concentration of industrial, human
and transport activity in urban environments
exposes cities to a number of more routine—and
often more damaging—health hazards. Chief
among these are deaths and injuries from traffic
accidents, particularly in cities in developing
countries, where public transport systems are
underdeveloped, driving standards are poor and
road rules are inadequately enforced. About 1.24m
people die each year on the world’s roads, and up
to 50m sustain non-fatal injuries, according to the
World Health Organisation (WHO).20
Cities also generate large amounts of pollution,
posing long-term health risks to urban residents.
Worldwide, just 12% of the residents of cities
that report on their air quality are living in cities
that meet WHO air quality guideline levels.21 The
main culprits are industrial and vehicle emissions
as well as those associated with electricity
generation (particularly coal-fired power plants).
In developing countries, additional risks are
posed by indoor pollution. Kerosene lamps and
other traditional cooking stoves burn solid fuels
and biomass such as wood, coal and animal dung.
Migration of rural populations into urban areas
is exacerbating this problem. Globally, the WHO
estimates that indoor air pollution from solid
fuel use and urban outdoor air pollution are
responsible for 3.1m premature deaths.22
http://www.who.
int/features/factfiles/
roadsafety/en/
20
http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/news/
releases/2014/air-quality/
en/
21
http://www.who.int/ipcs/
assessment/public_health/
air_pollution/en/
22
17
Failing to tackle pollution can have a negative
impact on a city’s appeal to migrants. This is the
case in China, where multinational companies are
finding it hard to persuade expatriate workers
to work in some cities because of severe air
pollution. Beijing, at position 30, is the highestranked Chinese city in this category. It falls to
position 47 on the air quality sub-indicator.
“It’s a huge problem for cities that have
consistent pollution over protracted periods
of time,” says Peggy Liu, chairperson of the
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
Joint US-China Collaboration on Clean Energy
(JUCCCE). “It’s driving people away in droves, so
retention of talent is a really big problem.”
Working it out
In creating healthy environments for citizens,
city governments need to adopt strategies that
are preventive as well as reactive. For example, in
addition to addressing pollution, cities can help
keep residents healthy by creating green spaces
and promoting diet and exercise. One powerful
tool in improving the health of city residents is
data analytics. Tom Lawry, director of worldwide
health at Microsoft, points to an initiative
undertaken by Meriter, a US health provider that
is the main medical centre for the city of Madison,
Wisconsin.
Researchers combined internal data from the
medical records of people diagnosed with a chronic
disease, such as diabetes, and married these with
large amounts of external data on where people
live, such as the amount of green space in their
neighbourhoods and access to grocery stores.
They found a correlation between levels of obesity
and low-income neighbourhoods where the only
convenient food stores were fast-food chains. “At
a local level, you can define the issue and take
proactive measures,” says Mr Lawry. “It’s going
from descriptive analytics for cities to predictive
analytics—and the data are all there.”
Living in a safe and healthy urban environment
can make a real and measurable difference to
city inhabitants. The average life expectancy of
citizens living in the top 25 cities in the Index
is 81 years, compared with 75 years for those
living cities in the bottom half of the table. The
biggest gap is between Melbourne, Australia
and Johannesburg, South Africa (86 years vs 60
years). While a gap in average life expectancy
of some 25 years is a strong incentive to move
elsewhere, only the wealthiest citizens are likely
to be able to afford to relocate, placing a further
strain on overstretched resources.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Megacities: Keeping 10m people safe
Some of the cities that appear in the top ten of
the Safe Cities Index are relatively small. The
population of Amsterdam, which is in position 5,
is roughly 780,000. Zurich, at number 7 overall
(and first for health security), has an even
smaller population of 380,000. However, some
cities face the challenge of delivering a safe
urban environment for a much larger number of
residents.
Megacities are defined as cities with more than
10m inhabitants. Based on population figures
from the UN,23 the Index features 20 megacities
(see Appendix [1]). Tokyo has a population of
38m people, making it the largest megacity on
earth, a title it will keep up to 2030. Jakarta
is the smallest megacity in the Index with a
population of 10.17m.
Megacities can be safe cities, as Tokyo shows,
but only six make it into the top half of the
Index: Tokyo, Osaka, New York, Los Angeles,
Paris and London. Besides Buenos Aires, the
14 megacities in the lower half of the Index
all come from emerging economies, either the
BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa) or the MINT countries (Mexico,
Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey).
As these cities grow, they need to provide
services for greater numbers of citizens on
budgets that are not necessarily expanding
as fast. “Resources are stretched,” says Vivien
Carli, co-author of Practical Approaches to Urban
Crime Prevention, a report published in 2011
by the International Centre for the Prevention
of Crime. “Just providing basic security such
as policing is becoming very difficult, and the
majority of the megacities are suffering from
that.”
This can lead to the emergence of large lawless
slums and “no-go areas” where organised crime
flourishes and residents are put at high risk
of exploitation and victimisation. Mumbai,
for example (which is at position 44 in the
The big five
After Tokyo, the rest of the five largest cities are in emerging markets. These cities, each with
20m+ inhabitants, all feature in the bottom half of the Safe Cities Index 2015.
City (overall rank)
63.31
65.93
Shanghai (30)
60.37
62.33
Sao Paulo (40)
53.76
61.88
Delhi (42)
Mumbai (44)
45.31
60.72
61.16
59.46
Mexico City (45)
Key
Health score/100
http://esa.un.org/unpd/
wup/Highlights/WUP2014Highlights.pdf
23
18
Top 50 average 65.7
Overall score/100
Top 50 average 69.4
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
100
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
overall index), is famous for its sprawling slum
developments.
Megacities attract large numbers of migrants
from rural areas and international migrants,
whether legal or illegal. “Meeting their
needs takes resources,” explains Ms Carli. “In
developed countries you have money going into
19
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
healthcare. In most megacities there’s nothing
like that—it’s chaos.” This can also create
vulnerable communities of “outsiders” and can
lead to cultural clashes that result in violence.
Moreover, the divide between rich and poor in
megacities is growing. “We’re seeing a lot more
division occurring in megacities that’s creating
a lot of tension,” says Ms Carli.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Index of indexes: Where is the best place to live?
Deciding where to live is a personal choice for
many city residents. For some, safety will be
paramount. Others will prioritise culture and
creativity. Two neighbours may hold opposite
views on democracy and the cost of living.
But often choice will be based on a mixture of
(Rank) Score
Index of indexes: Top 25 cities
(7) 84.82
Score/100
50 city average
Toronto (8) 78.81
100
80
60
40
Rank (vs 50 cities
in Safe Cities City
Index)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
20
(11) 72.04
0
Average
position across
six EIU indeces
Toronto
Montreal
Stockholm
Amsterdam
San Francisco
Melbourne
Zurich
Washington DC
Sydney
Chicago
Los Angeles
Brussels
New York
Frankfurt
Osaka
Tokyo
Barcelona
Santiago
Paris
Madrid
Taipei
London
Seoul
Hong Kong
Rome
17
23
25
25
26
27
27
27
28
28
30
32
33
33
33
35
36
36
37
40
40
41
45
45
46
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
(8) 87.57
(21) 70.8
reasons: an entrepreneur looking for the best
city to start a business may also intend to start a
family.
To provide a broad picture of how cities perform,
we have tracked how the 50 cites in our Index
perform across a range of other indexes created
by The Economist Intelligence Unit. Three of
these indexes are at the city level (Safe Cities,
Liveability Rankings, Cost of Living) and three
are at the country level (Business Environment
Rankings, Democracy Index, Global Food Security
Index).
The average rankings for the 25 best-performing
cities are set out below. Toronto (8) in Canada
is a consistent performer across the five other
indexes, putting it top overall. The complete
Index of Indexes is available in Appendix 3.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Category 3: Infrastructure safety
This category measures the safety of a city’s infrastructure, based on factors such
as the quality of its roads (input) and the number of deaths from natural disasters
(output)
Safety briefing
High- and upper-middle-income cities
dominate the top ten in this category, with
a diverse geographical spread spanning Asia
and Australia to North America and the Middle
East. One outlier is Hong Kong. Ranked 11th
overall, it drops to 40th for infrastructure
safety. While it scores top for the quality of its
roads, it is mid-table for the number of vehicle
accidents per year and one from the bottom for
the number of annual pedestrian deaths. It also
ranks outside the top 15 for the percentage of
the population living in urban slums.
By contrast, the bottom ten is made up of cities
from low- or lower-middle-income countries
(with the exception of Riyadh). For cities in
these countries, investments in infrastructure,
such as efficient transport systems or improved
power generation, could help generate
economic activity and create jobs, improving
https://www.linkedin.
com/pub/fred-krimgold/3/
b24/234
24
21
Infrastructure plays a vital part in city safety.
Well-designed and constructed transport
systems, for instance, allow for everything, from
traffic calming measures to pedestrian zones,
making life safer for everyone, from drivers
and cyclists to subway and bus commuters.
Maintaining the infrastructure and networks
that support water, power, communications and
sanitation services is also critical.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
(Rank) Score
Score/100
50 city average
Riyadh (46) 57.09
(42) 60.26
(44) 61.53
100
80
60
40
20
0
(43) 53.26
(43) 53.33
livelihoods for city residents. However, few
can mobilise the funds needed to make these
investments, making it hard to increase the
safety and prosperity for urban citizens.
“A single point of failure can have consequences
across a wide area,” according to Frederick
Krimgold, director of the disaster risk reduction
programme at Virginia Tech.24 “That is what
makes infrastructure security so important.”
The rapid expansion of urban populations
poses big challenges for municipal authorities
in developing countries. “Cities are growing at
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Top 10 cities:
Infrastructure safety
Rank
Cities are growing
at a pace that’s
greater than the
ability of some
governments
to develop and
maintain additional
services
Dan Lewis, urban risk reduction
programme, UN Habitat
http://unhabitat.org/
urban-themes/housingslum-upgrading/
City (overall rank)
Score/100
1
Zurich (7)
92.63
2
Melbourne (9)
92.28
3
Sydney (6)
4
Amsterdam (5)
91.27
5
Tokyo (1)
89.79
6
Montreal (14)
89.47
7
Singapore (2)
88.86
8
Toronto (8)
87.57
9
Madrid (21)
87.28
91.4
=10
Abu Dhabi (25)
86.16
=10
San Francisco (12)
86.16
a pace that’s greater than the ability of some
governments to develop and maintain additional
services,” says Kenya-based Dan Lewis, who
heads the urban risk reduction programme at
UN Habitat. “City systems suffer as a result, and
infrastructure begins to deteriorate.”
Moreover, up to 80% of the world’s urban poor
live in slums in some cities, according to UN
Habitat, with 55m new slum dwellers added to
the global population since 2000.25 Retrofitting
these unplanned settlements with essential
infrastructure, such as water and power networks
and transport systems, is extremely difficult.
These systems will play a critical role in city
safety, reducing both the pollution arising from
increasing traffic congestion and the accidents
caused by cars.
Reflecting such spending, this category of the
Index features a group of Chinese cities (Beijing,
Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Tianjin)
appearing together at positions 30 to 34.
Nevertheless, rapid infrastructure construction
brings its own perils. China has a mixed record
on the safety of everything from buildings to rail
systems. In 2011, for instance, a high-speed rail
crash in Wenzhou in eastern China resulted in 40
deaths and 200 injuries.27
Sensing danger
For some cities, the challenge is not the safe
construction of new pieces of infrastructure
but the maintenance and upgrading of existing
structures and systems—some of which may be
extremely old, particularly in European cities.
However, western European cities are clearly
winning this battle, since only one city (Paris)
falls into the lower half of this category.
“In the 1970s people talked about slum
upgrading and building sanitation systems into
existing slums,” says Mr Krimgold. “That turns
out to be extremely expensive and not altogether
successful.”
Technology has a role to play here. Data from
wireless-enabled sensors are increasingly
being analysed and used to monitor the safety
of existing structures such as bridges, tunnels
and water and sanitation networks. The
Singapore government, for instance, plans to
install 1,000 sensors across the city in 2015 to
monitor conditions such as water levels, traffic
congestion, crowds and air quality.
But while some cities are failing to invest
sufficiently in infrastructure, others in emerging
markets are pushing ahead with rapid and
large-scale urban infrastructure developments.
In China, for example, the 12th Five-Year
Plan (2011-15) allows for the construction or
extension of metro links in many major cities.26
“We can’t predict everything,” says Andrew
Smyth, professor of civil engineering and
engineering mechanics at Columbia University.
“But generally speaking, if you’re looking and
measuring, you’ll probably see things that might
be early indicators of problems coming down the
road.”
25
http://www.kpmg.com/
CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/
ArticlesPublications/
documents/Infrastructurein-China-201302.pdf
26
http://www.bbc.
co.uk/news/world-asiachina-16345592
27
22
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
In addition to natural wear and tear, city
infrastructure must stand up to severe weather
events of increasing frequency and intensity.
Examples include the floods that swept across
Bangkok in 2011 and Prague in 2013; Hurricane
Katrina, which wrought devastation across New
Orleans in 2005; and Hurricane Sandy, which
hit New York and New Jersey in 2012, leaving
millions of people without power and causing
US$68bn in damage, according to Swiss Re, a
global reinsurer.28
Building resilience into city infrastructure to
mitigate the damage caused by natural disasters
means thinking not only about the infrastructure
itself, but also the systems that support it. Tim
Chapman, director of the infrastructure design
group at Arup, a global engineering firm, cites
the example of London’s Thames Barrier. The
barrier’s paddles, which can be closed under
storm surge conditions to protect the city from
flooding, are served by three independent
sources of electricity.
“It is electricity that powers telecoms systems,
which powers control systems—and without that
everything fails,” says Mr Chapman. “If all the
traffic lights fail, for example, you have gridlock.
If power failure means air traffic controllers can’t
even get to work, you end up with planes not
taking off.”
“Mind the risk: A global
ranking of cities under
threat from natural
disasters”, Swiss Re, 2013.
28
23
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
Community spirit
The interdependence of city infrastructure and
services means that co-ordination between
the different stakeholders in a city is becoming
increasingly important. This is something that is
critical both before and after crises, according
to Sandra Švaljek, the deputy mayor of Croatia’s
capital Zagreb. “Whenever there’s an emergency,
or something that might happen, we have a
meeting to which we invite all the institutions in
charge of the different city services,” she says.
Joining the institutional dots to build city
resilience against a variety of shocks is
something the World Bank is helping cities to do
with financial support from the Global Facility
for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. It has
developed a diagnostic tool called CityStrength to
help cities identify areas of weakness—whether
in physical infrastructure and health systems or
crime and violence—and the investments and
institutional measures necessary to address
them.
“Working across sectors and jurisdictions is a
critical dimension of urban development,” says
Sameh Naguib Wahba, manager for the World
Bank Group’s social, urban, rural and resilience
global practice. He argues that by understanding
fully the various risks they face, cities can
address them more holistically—and emerge
stronger as a result. “Strengthening resilience is
critical for a city’s competitiveness,” he argues.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Safe pair of hands: Profile of San Francisco’s first
chief resilience officer
Until recently Patrick Otellini’s title was director
of earthquake safety for the city and county of
San Francisco (ranked 12th overall).29 Since
April 2014, however, that has changed. Mr
Otellini is now the world’s first chief resilience
officer.30
His position—which has been funded for two
years by the Rockefeller Foundation as part of
its 100 Resilient Cities programme—is designed
to give San Francisco a leader with a holistic
view of everything that could test the city and
county, from population density, climate change
and resource scarcity to social inequity and
migration.
Given the position of the San Francisco Bay
area on the San Andreas Fault, the threat of
earthquakes remains a major focus for Mr
Otellini. However, he sees his role as one of
bringing different departments together to
make collaborative plans that, in the event of a
disaster such as an earthquake, will help the city
bounce back stronger.
“The way I can be successful in bringing these
people together is not to come in and claim
ownership over this process,” says Mr Otellini.
“It’s not my job to be the expert on rising sea
levels or anti-terrorism efforts—it’s my job to
be the conduit that connects these people, so
we can all realise the benefits of doing this work
together.”
When it comes to collaboration on safety and
resilience, Mr Otellini sees the private sector
playing an important role. In 2009 the city
established its Lifelines Council, a group of
city leaders who have regular meetings with
members of the private sector, primarily the
city’s utility and service providers. “It started
the conversation,” says Mr Otellini. “That way,
https://www.linkedin.
com/pub/patrickotellini/5/601/419
29
http://www.
rockefellerfoundation.org/
blog/q-with-worlds-firstchief-resilience
30
24
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
after a disaster we’re not meeting for the first
time.”
Moreover, the council is now working on
examining the city’s interdependencies, such
as the need for energy, so that communications
systems can continue to function in an
emergency. “You have things like telecoms, WiFi connections and cell sites that are going down
to a hard-wired fibre loop,” says Mr Otellini. “If
these systems don’t have back-up power, we
don’t have communications.”
(Rank) Score
Score/100
50 city average
San Francisco (12) 76.63
100
80
60
40
(21) 72.96
20
(8) 73.85
0
(10) 86.16
(16) 73.53
Technology companies also have a role to
play, particularly in a city dominated by the
technology sector. “What we are seeing is that
tech companies can have some amazing impact
if they share their data with the right people,”
Mr Otellini explains. “You’re able to understand
some profound things about supply chains and
how to become resilient and recover when you
start analysing these data.”
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Category 4: Personal safety
This category measures the more traditional aspects of a city’s safety in terms of
its levels of crime and illegal activity, relying on factors such as the level of police
engagement (input) and the prevalence of violent crime (output)
Safety briefing
Stockholm is the only non-Asian city in the top
five in the personal safety category, which is
led by Singapore. Rich-world cities generally
fill the top half of this category, although
economic success does not necessarily
guarantee increased personal safety. Chile is
a relatively prosperous nation, but Santiago’s
poor performance at the bottom is due in part
to high levels of domestic violence and rape,31
and low levels of trust in law enforcement
authorities and the criminal justice system.32
http://santiagotimes.
cl/despite-lowest-murderrate-chileans-insecurelatin-america/
31
UNDP Human Development
Report, 2012, p. 10.
Available at: http://www.
undp.org/content/dam/
rblac/docs/Research%20
and%20Publications/IDH/
IDH-AL-ExecutiveSummary.
pdf
32
Brussels US embassy:
http://belgium.usembassy.
gov/security_messages/
security-messages-tou.s.-citizens; US State
Department: http://
travel.state.gov/content/
passports/english/country/
italy.html
33
25
Nor do Rome and Brussels perform well.
Europe’s ancient and modern capital cities
are ranked 40th and 41st, respectively. This
could be explained by the prevalence of petty
crimes, such as muggings, bag snatching and
pick-pocketing, which the US State Department
warns American travellers about in its
advisories on both cities.33
Personal safety and the threat of crime and
violence are uppermost in the minds of urban
residents. In a 2011 EIU survey on city liveability,
respondents ranked safety and security third in
importance in making a city an appealing place
in which to live and work. With this in mind, city
leaders and policymakers can consider making
regulatory changes to mitigate the risks to
personal safety, such as limiting gun possession
or controlling drug use. But direct action usually
requires substantial investment.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
(Rank) Score
Score/100
50 city average
Singapore (2) 84.61
100
80
60
40
(1) 90.42
20
0
(7) 88.86
(2) 83.85
(12) 75.31
One city that has focused on developing a
sophisticated policing strategy is Barcelona,
which is at position 11 in the personal safety
category. Three years ago the Barcelona city
council decided to increase the police presence
on the streets and in the subway. The strategy
has yielded results. “In three years crime has
dropped by 32%,” says Josep Rius, chief of staff
to the deputy mayor of Barcelona.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Top 10 cities:
Personal safety
Rank
Josep Rius, chief of staff,
deputy mayor of Barcelona
Score/100
Singapore (2)
2
Osaka (3)
90.2
3
Tokyo (1)
89.31
4
Stockholm (4)
87.51
5
Taipei (13)
85.67
6
Hong Kong (11)
85.09
7
Toronto (8)
84.82
8
Melbourne (9)
82.72
9
Amsterdam (5)
82.39
10
In three years crime
has dropped by 32%
City (overall rank)
1
90.42
Sydney (6)
80.4
In addition to the actual drop in crime, the
police presence has increased perceptions of
safety among the city’s residents. “Barcelona
is not a dangerous city,” says Mr Rius. “But
people thought it wasn’t a safe city. Now we
have changed this perception—and that’s really
important.”
Seoul, meanwhile, is considering the safety of its
visitors. In October 2013 the city launched a new
police unit called the “tourist police”. Speaking
English, Japanese and Chinese, the officers
patrol major tourist areas to protect visitors not
only from theft and other crimes but also from
overcharging merchants and taxi drivers. Tourists
experiencing problems can also call a special
hotline.34
likely to be either victims or perpetrators of
crime. These individuals then receive visits and
are issued warnings.35
Meanwhile, as part of an initiative called Future
City Glasgow—a £24m (US$37m) programme
to demonstrate how technology can make the
city smarter, safer and more sustainable—the
Scottish city is developing street lighting systems
that react to environmental factors related to
crime.
At times of low risk, the lights dim to save energy.
But if sensors installed in the lamp posts detect
activity or noise, such as someone walking alone
at night or two large groups moving towards
each other, the lights brighten. CCTV operators
working in the city’s new £12m (US$18.8m)
integrated operations centre are alerted to any
unusually high noise levels, such as shouting,
which can then be notified to the police.
“It’s a different approach for what’s now referred
to as the humble lamp post,” says Jonathan
Brown, programme manager of city system
integration at Future City Glasgow. “What we’re
looking at is how the asset can drive added
value.”
http://english.visitkorea.
or.kr/enu/FU/FU_EN_15.
jsp?cid=1851556
Data analytics, for example, can also enable cities
to track and predict incidences of crime.
Some interventions do not require any
investment in technology, infrastructure or an
increased police presence. The careful design
and layout of residences and public spaces can
do much to increase personal safety for citizens.
For instance, a city at risk of terrorist attacks
need not become a fortress of steel fences and
concrete barriers. Instead, elements found in a
typical streetscape—from information kiosks,
benches and parking meters to lamp posts, news
stands and bus shelters—can be strengthened to
act as protective barriers.
http://articles.
chicagotribune.com/201308-21/news/ct-met-heatlist-20130821_1_chicagopolice-commander-andrewpapachristos-heat-list
To tackle its high levels of violent crime,
Chicago—which is in position 25 in the personal
safety category—has used an algorithm
developed by an Illinois Institute of Technology
engineer to identify a “heat list” of individuals
“Water features can deflect the opportunity for
anyone to approach the building with a vehicle,”
says Brian Quinn, Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment (Cabe) adviser at
the Design Council. “Those create a pleasant
Being resourceful
High levels of police engagement and patrolling
are instrumental to security. At the same
time, some cities are recognising the power of
technology in preventing crime.
34
35
26
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
approach to the building and have public
benefits, rather than being a hardened stand-off
zone.”
Seoul is implementing a range of “design against
crime” projects.36 Inspired by the work of the UKbased Design Against Crime Research Centre, the
city is working with designers, public bodies and
others to develop new products and systems that
tackle crimes such as ATM muggings, bike theft
and shoplifting.
Safe as houses
When it comes to residential areas, following
certain basic design principles can do much to
enhance personal safety for residents, says Mr
Quinn, an urban designer who focuses on public
spaces, streets, housing and crime prevention.
He cites measures that include placing front
doors facing the street and avoiding footpaths
and cul-de-sacs at the back of homes, which
might allow intruders to enter unseen.
But enhancing the safety of homes through
good design does not only benefit residents. The
http://www.arts.ac.uk/
research/research-impact/
dac--crime-preventionthrough-innovative-design/
36
27
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
advent of social media means that individuals are
becoming more vocal about the places they live
in. This, says Mr Quinn, means developers need
to pay attention to what works and what does not
work in terms of safety.
“In the past house developers could build what
they wished,” he says. “Now if the first phase has
an unfortunate reflection, it can be harder for
developers to sell the next phase.”
Even in developing countries, there are ways of
increasing security without additional cost to city
budgets. UN Habitat’s Mr Lewis says that talking
to individuals and families about the kinds of
crimes they may face can involve the community
in crime prevention.
“Through consultation and engagement
everybody gets a sense of the dimensions of
crime,” he says. “And the more people that are
engaged in understanding the dimensions of
crime, the more likely it is that the police will
have increased assets outside the force working
on their behalf.”
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Gated communities: A false sense of security?
Built as communal courtyard houses, the
Shikumen of Shanghai emerged in the mid19th century as a response to the turmoil of the
Taiping rebellion. With security a high priority
for people shaken by violence, the Shikumen
were an early form of gated community
(shikumen means stone gate) with a single
entrance often manned by a watchman. Two
centuries later, gated communities are still a
response to fear of urban crime and violence.
National survey on gated
communities in South
Africa, CSIR Building and
Construction Technology,
2003, p.63. Available at:
http://www.csir.co.za/
Built_environment/
Planning_support_
systems/gatedcomsa/docs/
Nat_survey_gated_com_
SA.pdf
37
Francisco Sabatini and
Rodrigo Salcedo, “Gated
Communities and the
Poor in Santiago, Chile:
Functional and Symbolic
Integration in a Context
of Aggressive Capitalist
Colonization of LowerClass Areas”, Pontificia
Universidad Católica de
Chile, 2007.
38
For this reason, gated communities often have
high perimeter fences, 24-hour guard services
and limited external access. They range from
secure townhouse complexes or condominiums
to larger security estates and enclosed
neighbourhoods with schools, shops and offices
within the enclosed area. Admittedly, many
offer residents other benefits, such as shared
amenities and privacy. But, tellingly, these
kinds of residences can be found in many of the
cities that appear at the bottom of the list in the
personal safety category.
Take Johannesburg, which appears in position
39 in the personal safety category and at 45
in the outputs sub-indicator, which includes
factors such as the prevalence of violent crime,
criminal gang activity and perceptions of safety.
The prevalence of violent crime in the South
African city has seen a growth in the number of
gated communities. By 2004 Johannesburg had
300 enclosed neighbourhoods and 20 security
estates.37
Santiago—at the bottom of the list in the
personal safety category—has also seen gated
Gregory D. Breetzke and
Ellen G. Cohn, “Burglary
in Gated Communities:
An Empirical Analysis
Using Routine Activities
Theory”, International
Criminal Justice Review,
March 2013, Vol. 23, No.
1, pp. 56-74. Available at:
http://icj.sagepub.com/
content/23/1/56.refs
39
28
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
(Rank) Score
Score/100
50 city average
Santiago (28) 66.98
100
80
60
40
(50) 53.58
20
0
(24) 78.83
(13) 70.51
(28) 65.02
communities flourish. In 2007 the authors of
a paper on gated communities in the Chilean
city reported that “the number of gated
communities has increased significantly during
the past few years”.38
Ironically, however, the development of these
residential fortresses can foster suspicion and
lead to greater social divisions and increased
prevalence of crime. With residents shut
away behind high walls, what were previously
public spaces outside gated communities
can become deserted and dangerous. Nor
are residents always safe when inside their
communities. A 2013 study of South Africa’s
gated neighbourhoods found that moving to
these residences actually increased the risk of
burglary.39
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Conclusion
Modern cities are presenting increasingly
complex safety challenges. New threats demand
new approaches. Cities cannot simply allow the
fearful to retreat behind the high walls of gated
communities. The fortress mentality does not
create an urban environment that is liveable and
safe—even more so when the online world knows
no borders.
Instead, cities can use intelligent design and
carefully considered city layouts to reduce the
threat of violent crime or terrorist attacks,
while creating an urban environment that is
visually attractive and easy for everyone, from
pedestrians to cyclists, to navigate. Progress in
the physical world should be matched online,
since the separation between virtual and physical
safety is becoming increasingly blurred.
Technology can help here, from energy-efficient
street lighting to systems that allow many
different local agencies to view the same data.
Nonetheless, people continue to play a central
role in creating a safe environment. Either way
safe cities require resources. While cities in
mature markets are making progress on shoring
up the security of their cities, encouraging
healthy citizens and concentrating efforts
29
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
on prevention, the Index clearly shows the
difficulties facing cities in developing countries.
These cities, with rapidly expanding populations
and overstretched financial resources, need
to become more creative at devising low-cost
solutions to urban security. Drawing on a vast
array of data may not be a realistic option for
some time, so existing resources from the wider
community should be called upon. Businesses
in fast-growing markets have a clear economic
interest in a safe city, populated with contented
consumers untroubled by cybercrime and healthy
and productive workers breathing clean air in
green open spaces.
Ultimately, in mature and emerging cities alike,
local governments and city leaders need to get
better at collaborating with all city stakeholders
from different departments, sectors and civil
society groups. The arguments for taking such
measures are compelling when most of the
world now calls a city their home. Safe cities are
those that can support a vibrant cultural life
and a dynamic entrepreneurial environment in
which everyone can thrive. The best examples
of these will be at the forefront of economic and
commercial growth for years to come.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix:
1. Safe Cities Index
2. Safe Cities Index by income
3. Index of indexes
4. Index methodology
30
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 1: Safe Cities Index
EIU Safe Cities Index 2015: Overall
Weighted total of all category scores (0-100 where 100=best)
OVERALL
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
FACT SHEET
City
Tokyo
Singapore
Osaka
Stockholm
Amsterdam
Sydney
Zurich
Toronto
Melbourne
New York
Hong Kong
San Francisco
Taipei
Montreal
Barcelona
Chicago
Los Angeles
London
Washington DC
Frankfurt
Madrid
Brussels
Paris
Seoul
Abu Dhabi
Milan
Rome
Santiago
Doha
Shanghai
Buenos Aires
Shenzhen
Lima
Tianjin
Rio de Janeiro
Kuwait City
Beijing
Guangzhou
Bangkok
Sao Paulo
Istanbul
Delhi
Moscow
Mumbai
Mexico City
Riyadh
Johannesburg
Ho Chi Minh City
Tehran
Jakarta
Score/100
85.63
84.61
82.36
80.02
79.19
78.91
78.84
78.81
78.67
78.08
77.24
76.63
76.51
75.6
75.16
74.89
74.24
73.83
73.37
73.05
72.35
71.72
71.21
70.9
69.83
69.64
67.13
66.98
66.41
65.93
65.88
65.76
65.01
63.55
63.52
63.47
63.25
62.79
62.69
62.33
62.25
61.88
61.6
60.72
59.46
57.09
56.26
54.93
53.78
53.71
Capital city
Y
N/A
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Country
Life expectancy (average
number of years)
Population
band*
Host of summer Olympic games
(year)
82
82
83
82
79
81
84
81
86
81
84
80
83
81
82
78
80
82
76
79
82
81
81
83
77
83
82
78
78
80
76
75
74
79
73
78
81
76
74
71
72
70
76
71
77
75
60
73
77
73
10m+
5-10m
10m+
0-5m
0-5m
0-5m
0-5m
5-10m
0-5m
10m+
5-10m
0-5m
0-5m
0-5m
5-10m
5-10m
10m+
10m+
0-5m
0-5m
5-10m
0-5m
10m+
5-10m
0-5m
0-5m
0-5m
5-10m
0-5m
10m+
10m+
10m+
5-10m
10m+
10m+
0-5m
10m+
10m+
5-10m
10m+
10m+
10m+
10m+
10m+
10m+
5-10m
5-10m
5-10m
5-10m
10m+
1964, 2020
Japan
Singapore
Japan
Sweden
The Netherlands
Australia
Switzerland
Canada
Australia
U.S.A
China
U.S.A
Taiwan
Canada
Spain
U.S.A
U.S.A
U.K
U.S.A
Germany
Spain
Belgium
France
Republic of Korea
U.A.E
Italy
Italy
Chile
Qatar
China
Argentina
China
Peru
China
Brazil
Kuwait
China
China
Thailand
Brazil
Turkey
India
Russia
India
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Vietnam
Iran
Indonesia
*United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights
31
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
1912
1928
2000
1956
1976
1992
1932, 1984
1908, 1948, 2012
1900, 1924
1988
1960
2016
2008
1980
1968
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 1: Safe Cities Index
EIU Safe Cities Index 2015: Rankings by category
Weighted score per category (0-100 where 100=best)
DIGITAL SECURITY
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
32
City
Tokyo
Singapore
New York
Hong Kong
Osaka
Los Angeles
Stockholm
San Francisco
Abu Dhabi
Chicago
Toronto
Montreal
Santiago
Sydney
Washington DC
London
Amsterdam
Mumbai
Zurich
Melbourne
Taipei
Brussels
Kuwait City
Delhi
Shenzhen
Milan
Mexico City
Madrid
Barcelona
Buenos Aires
Doha
Paris
Frankfurt
Beijing
Rome
Shanghai
Guangzhou
Lima
Sao Paulo
Rio de Janeiro
Tianjin
Ho Chi Minh City
Riyadh
Johannesburg
Bangkok
Moscow
Seoul
Jakarta
Istanbul
Tehran
HEALTH SECURITY
Score/100
Rank
87.18
83.85
79.42
78.78
77
74.99
74.82
73.85
73.71
72.9
72.04
72.04
70.51
70.48
69.99
69.42
68.81
68.07
67.04
65.42
65.11
64.6
64.21
63.33
62.74
62.62
61.69
60.78
60.29
59.58
58.73
58.4
57.45
56.87
56.67
56.14
55.14
55.09
54.93
54.74
54.26
53.31
53.26
52.9
52.86
51.54
51.46
48.48
46.83
46.58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
City
Zurich
New York
Brussels
Frankfurt
Paris
Osaka
Barcelona
Tokyo
Taipei
Stockholm
Madrid
Singapore
Amsterdam
Melbourne
Hong Kong
San Francisco
Sydney
Seoul
Washington DC
Montreal
Toronto
London
Chicago
Moscow
Rome
Los Angeles
Milan
Santiago
Buenos Aires
Beijing
Shanghai
Shenzhen
Mexico City
Tianjin
Bangkok
Sao Paulo
Guangzhou
Rio de Janeiro
Kuwait City
Lima
Doha
Delhi
Riyadh
Jakarta
Abu Dhabi
Istanbul
Johannesburg
Ho Chi Minh City
Tehran
Mumbai
Score/100
79.05
78.52
77.63
77.38
76.95
76.55
76.35
76.26
76
75.83
75.53
75.31
74.28
74.27
73.61
73.53
73.35
72.86
72.53
72.4
70.8
69.78
69.71
68.93
67.13
66.57
66.16
65.02
64.64
64.1
63.31
61.85
61.16
60.93
60.5
60.37
60.07
57.48
56.81
54.44
54.16
53.76
53.33
53.11
52.06
50.77
50.17
48.39
48.22
45.31
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 1: Safe Cities Index
EIU Safe Cities Index 2015: Rankings by category
Weighted score per category (0-100 where 100=best)
INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
33
City
Zurich
Melbourne
Sydney
Amsterdam
Tokyo
Montreal
Singapore
Toronto
Madrid
San Francisco
Abu Dhabi
Osaka
Chicago
Barcelona
Seoul
New York
Brussels
Rome
Los Angeles
Frankfurt
Stockholm
Taipei
Milan
Santiago
London
Paris
Istanbul
Buenos Aires
Washington DC
Shanghai
Guangzhou
Beijing
Tianjin
Shenzhen
Sao Paulo
Doha
Lima
Rio de Janeiro
Kuwait City
Hong Kong
Moscow
Bangkok
Tehran
Riyadh
Johannesburg
Delhi
Mumbai
Jakarta
Mexico City
Ho Chi Minh City
PERSONAL SAFETY
Score/100
Rank
92.63
92.28
91.4
91.27
89.79
89.47
88.86
87.57
87.28
86.16
86.16
85.71
85.69
85.65
85.64
84.93
84.34
83.77
83.72
82.79
81.92
79.25
78.91
78.83
78.78
78.22
77.71
77.03
77
76.63
76.57
76.54
76.53
76.5
76.41
76.34
75.69
74.4
73.4
71.46
70.65
66.44
63.98
61.53
60.67
57.71
55.89
54.02
52.93
52.41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
City
Singapore
Osaka
Tokyo
Stockholm
Taipei
Hong Kong
Toronto
Melbourne
Amsterdam
Sydney
Barcelona
London
Zurich
Doha
Lima
Frankfurt
Washington DC
Istanbul
Seoul
Mumbai
San Francisco
Delhi
Los Angeles
Paris
Chicago
Bangkok
Milan
New York
Montreal
Shanghai
Rio de Janeiro
Abu Dhabi
Madrid
Ho Chi Minh City
Tianjin
Buenos Aires
Mexico City
Shenzhen
Johannesburg
Rome
Brussels
Riyadh
Kuwait City
Guangzhou
Jakarta
Sao Paulo
Tehran
Beijing
Moscow
Santiago
Score/100
90.42
90.2
89.31
87.51
85.67
85.09
84.82
82.72
82.39
80.4
78.36
77.35
76.62
76.41
74.81
74.57
73.95
73.7
73.62
73.61
72.96
72.7
71.66
71.29
71.27
70.97
70.87
69.45
68.48
67.66
67.45
67.39
65.81
65.62
62.46
62.25
62.07
61.96
61.29
60.94
60.31
60.26
59.47
59.37
59.23
57.59
56.35
55.51
55.27
53.58
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 2: Safe Cities Index by income
Rankings by income classification (EIU data)
High income (Above US$50,000)
Upper-middle income (US$30,000 to US$50,000)
(GDP per capita, 2013)
(GDP per capita, 2013)
Rank City
Overall rank
Overall score
Overall rank
Overall score
1 Singapore
2
84.6
1 Tokyo
1
85.6
2 Zurich
7
78.8
2 Osaka
3
82.4
3 New York
10
78.1
3 Stockholm
4
80
4 San Francisco
12
76.6
5 Chicago
16
74.9
4 Amsterdam
5
79.2
6 Los Angeles
17
74.2
5 Sydney
6
78.9
7 Washington DC
19
73.4
6 Toronto
8
78.8
8 Abu Dhabi
25
69.8
7 Melbourne
9
78.7
9 Doha
29
66.4
8 Hong Kong
11
77.2
36
63.47
9 Taipei
10 Kuwait City
11 Riyadh
46
57.09
Lower-middle income (US$10,000 to US$30,000)
(GDP per capita, 2013)
13
76.5
10 Montreal
14
75.6
11 Barcelona
15
75.2
12 London
18
73.8
13 Frankfurt
20
73.1
Overall rank
Overall score
14 Madrid
21
72.4
1 Santiago
28
67
15 Brussels
22
71.7
2 Shanghai
30
65.9
3 Buenos Aires
31
65.9
16 Paris
23
71.2
4 Shenzhen
32
65.8
5 Lima
33
65
6 Tianjin
34
63.6
7 Rio de Janeiro
35
63.5
8 Beijing
37
63.3
9 Guangzhou
38
62.8
10 Bangkok
39
62.7
Overall rank
Overall score
11 Sao Paulo
40
62.3
1 Delhi
42
61.9
12 Istanbul
41
62.3
2 Mumbai
44
60.7
13 Moscow
43
61.6
3 Ho Chi Minh City
48
54.9
14 Mexico City
45
59.5
4 Jakarta
50
53.7
15 Johannesburg
47
56.3
16 Tehran
49
53.8
Rank City
34
Rank City
17 Seoul
24
70.9
18 Milan
26
69.6
19 Rome
27
67.1
Low income (under US$10,000)
(GDP per capita, 2013)
Rank City
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 3: Index of indexes
Best overall
Best in category
EIU Index of indexes
City
Tokyo
Singapore
Osaka
Stockholm
Amsterdam
Sydney
Zurich
Toronto
Melbourne
New York
Hong Kong
San Francisco
Taipei
Montreal
Barcelona
Chicago
Los Angeles
London
Washington DC
Frankfurt
Madrid
Brussels
Paris
Seoul
Abu Dhabi
Milan
Rome
Santiago
Doha
Shanghai
Buenos Aires
Shenzhen
Lima
Tianjin
Rio de Janeiro
Kuwait City
Beijing
Guangzhou
Bangkok
Sao Paulo
Istanbul
Delhi
Moscow
Mumbai
Mexico City
Riyadh
Johannesburg
Ho Chi Minh City
Tehran
Jakarta
City level index
Safe Cities Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Country level index
Liveability
Rankings
(1-140; 1=most
livable)
18
52
12
14
26
7
11
4
1
56
31
52
61
16
34
36
42
55
34
18
44
28
16
58
79
46
49
64
86
81
62
84
80
75
91
82
74
90
102
91
108
111
73
115
105
108
91
121
129
117
Worldwide Cost
of Living (1 to
131; inverted so
1=cheapest)
123
131
118
107
86
127
128
70
123
104
119
62
72
86
96
91
96
116
81
121
103
96
130
116
49
104
96
54
15
107
43
93
34
56
54
15
84
62
70
73
76
3
84
1
73
10
15
39
62
39
Business Environment Democracy Index
Rankings (1-82;
(1-167; 1=most
1=best for business) democratic)
27
20
1
80
27
20
6
2
16
11
5
6
2
7
4
8
5
6
7
19
3
65
7
19
14
37
4
8
25
25
7
19
7
19
22
14
7
19
12
15
25
25
17
23
24
27
26
21
30
152
48
31
48
31
13
32
21
139
50
143
70
52
50
143
49
60
50
143
43
44
45
120
50
143
50
143
34
72
43
44
44
93
57
33
60
125
57
33
32
51
41
160
54
29
59
134
81
157
56
54
Global Food Security
Index (1-107; 1=most Average Index
secure)
Rank
18
35
16
47
18
33
14
25
5
25
15
28
5
27
8
17
15
27
1
33
42
45
1
26
42
40
8
23
19
36
1
28
1
30
20
41
1
27
11
33
19
40
7
32
3
37
24
45
NA
56
22
46
22
46
26
36
NA
48
42
76
35
49
42
74
50
51
42
67
29
49
NA
50
42
72
42
71
45
60
29
53
38
67
70
53
40
71
70
53
30
56
31
66
39
46
60
77
NA
80
66
64
Sources: Liveability Ranking, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2014; Worldwide Cost of Living, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2014; Business Environment Rankings (Global ranking 2014-2018), The
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2014; Democracy Index, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013; Global Food Security Index, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013
35
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 4: Safe Cities Index methodology
Index methodology
The Safe Cities Index measures the relative level
of safety of a diverse mix of the world’s leading
cities using four main categories of safety: digital
security, health security, infrastructure safety
and personal safety.
Every city in the Index is scored across these four
categories. Each category comprises between
three and eight sub-indicators, which are divided
between security inputs, such as policy measures
and level of spending, and outputs, such as the
frequency of vehicular accidents.
Four categories:
Digital security measures the extent
of resources dedicated to ensuring that
citizens can use the Internet and other
digital technologies without fear of privacy
violations or identity theft. On the input
side, cities are scored on their reliance on
digital infrastructure, the level of technology
employed and the existence of dedicated cyber
security teams. On the output side, the index
measures the frequency of identity theft and
the estimated number of computers infected
with a virus.
Health security measures how cities maintain
the physical environment and the level of care
available for their citizens. On the input side,
cities are scored based on their environmental
policies and access to and quality of healthcare
services. On the output side, the index
measures air and water quality, life expectancy
and infant mortality, among other subindicators.
Infrastructure safety considers another aspect
of the physical environment—the safety of a
36
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
city’s buildings and roads and its resilience
against disasters. On the input side, the
index takes into account the enforcement of
transport safety and the quality of electricity
infrastructure, while on the output side the
frequency of accidents and pedestrian deaths
are included, as well as the percentage of the
population living in urban slums.
Personal safety considers how secure
individual citizens are from theft and violence.
On the input side, the index takes into account
factors such as the level of police engagement,
the use of data-driven crime prevention and
the overall political stability of the country
where each city is located. On the output side,
the index takes into account the prevalence of
petty and violent crime as well as drug use, and
how safe people feel in the city.
Over 40 indicators:
The Index comprises 44 individual indicators.
They fall into two categories: quantitative and
qualitative; and two types: direct and proxy.
Quantitative indicators: Nineteen of the
Index’s 44 indicators are based on quantitative
data—for example, the frequency of vehicular
accidents per year per million inhabitants.
Qualitative indicators: Twenty-five of the
indicators are qualitative assessments of a
city’s safety—for example, the level of police
engagement.
Direct indicators: Thirty-four of the indicators
are specific to that city and are based on
available city-level data and EIU analysis.
Examples of direct indicators would include
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 4: Safe Cities Index methodology
the number of hospital beds available per
1,000 citizens (quantitative) and the quality of
electricity infrastructure (qualitative).
Proxy indicators: Ten indicators use regional
or country-level data as a substitute for direct
city-level data. Examples of proxy indicators
include the percentage of computers infected
(quantitative) and political stability risk
(qualitative).
Data sources
A team of in-house researchers collected
data for the Index from July to September
2014. In addition to data from The Economist
Intelligence Unit, which has produced a number
of similar indexes that measure cities on their
competitiveness, liveability and other issues,
publicly available information from official
sources has been used where applicable. Primary
sources include the World Health Organisation,
Kaspersky Lab and various others (see table
below).
Indicator normalisation
In order to be able to compare data points across
countries, as well as to construct aggregate
scores for each country, the project team had to
first make the gathered data comparable. To do
so, the quantitative indicators were normalised
on a scale of 0-100 using a min-max calculation,
where the score is the standard deviation from
37
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
the mean, with the best country scoring 100
points and the worst scoring 0.
Many of the qualitative indicators were
normalised in a similar way, but direct scores
from previous and ongoing EIU city indexes and
rankings were used. In some instances, those
scores were on a scale of 0-100. In others, a scale
of 1-5 was used, with 1 being the lowest or most
negative score, and 5 being the highest or most
positive score.
The status indicators were normalised as a twoor three-point rating. For example, “dedicated
cyber security teams” was normalised so that
neither a national- or city-level cyber security
team scored 0, a national team only scored 50,
and a city-level team scored 100.
Index construction
The index is an aggregate score of all the
underlying indicators. The index is first
aggregated by category—creating a score for
each category (for example, personal safety)—
and finally, overall, based on the composite of
the underlying category scores. To create the
underlying category scores, each underlying
indicator was aggregated according to an
assigned weighting. Sub-indicators are all
weighted equally, as are the four main indicator
categories.
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 4: Safe Cities Index methodology
1. Digital security
Weight: 25%
A. Inputs
Indicator Unit
1.1.1 Privacy policy 0 – 5, 5 = strong policy
1.1.2 Citizen awareness of digital threats 0 – 3, 3 = very aware
1.1.3 Public-private partnerships 0 – 2, 2 = close partnerships
1.1.4 Level of technology employed 0 – 100, 100 = highest
1.1.5 Dedicated cyber security teams 0 = none, 1 = national only, 2 = national and city level
Source
EIU analysis
EIU analysis
EIU analysis
EIU Global City Competitiveness Index
EIU analysis
B. Outputs
1.2.1 Frequency of identity theft %
1.2.2. Percentage of computers infected Scale 1 – 5, 5 = most
1.2.3 Percentage with Internet access %
EIU analysis
Kaspersky Lab
ITU
2. Health security
Weight: 25%
A. Inputs
Indicator Unit
2.1.1 Environmental policies 0 – 100, 100 = best
2.1.2 Access to healthcare 0 – 100, 100 = best
Source
EIU Green Cities Index
EIU City Liveability Index
2.1.3 No. of beds per 1,000 #
Local data sources
2.1.4 No. of doctors per 1,000 #
Local data sources
2.1.5 Access to safe and quality food 0 – 100, 100 = best
EIU City Liveability Index
2.1.6 Quality of health services 1 – 5, 5 = best
EIU City Liveability Index
B. Outputs
2.2.1 Air quality PM 2.5 levels
2.2.2 Water quality 0 – 100, 100 = best
WHO
EIU Green Cities Index
2.2.3 Life expectancy Years, the longer, the better
Local data sources
2.2.4 Infant mortality Deaths per 1,000 births
Local data sources
2.2.5 Cancer mortality rate Deaths per 100,000
Local data sources
3. Infrastructure safety
Weight: 25%
A. Inputs
Indicator Unit
3.1.1 Enforcement of transport safety 0 – 10, 10 = best
3.1.2 Pedestrian friendliness 1 – 5, 5 = best
Source
EIU analysis
EIU Green Cities Index
3.1.3 Quality of road infrastructure 1 – 5, 5 = best
EIU City Liveability Index
3.1.4 Quality of electricity infrastructure 1 – 5, 5 = best
EIU City Liveability Index
3.1.5 Disaster management/business continuity plan 1 – 5, 5 = best
EIU Global City Competitiveness Index
B. Outputs
3.2.1 Deaths from natural disasters # / million / yr, average of the last five years
3.2.2 Frequency of vehicular accidents # / million / yr
Local data sources
3.2.3 Frequency of pedestrian deaths # / million / yr
Local data sources
3.2.4 Percentage living in slums %
38
Local data sources
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
UNPD
The Safe Cities Index: Assessing urban security in the digital age
Appendix 4: Safe Cities Index methodology
4. Personal safety
Weight: 25%
A. Inputs
Indicator
Unit
Source
4.1.1 Level of police engagement
0 – 1, 1 = engagement plan, 0 = none
EIU analysis
4.1.2 Community-based patrolling
0 – 1, 1 = yes, 0 = none
EIU analysis
4.1.3 Available street-level crime data
0 – 1, 1 = yes, 0 = none
EIU analysis
4.1.4 Use of data-driven techniques for crime
0 – 1, 1 = yes, 0 = none
EIU analysis
4.1.5 Private security measures
0 – 1, 1 = yes, 0 = none
EIU analysis
4.1.6 Gun regulation and enforcement
0 – 10, 10 = strict enforcement
Local data sources
4.1.7 Political stability risk
0 – 100, 0 = no risk
EIU Operational Risk Model
4.2.1 Prevalence of petty crime
1 – 5, 5 = high prevalence
EIU City Liveability Index
4.2.2 Prevalence of violent crime
1 – 5, 5 = high prevalence
EIU City Liveability Index
4.2.3 Criminal gang activity
US$ billion
Havoscope Global Black Market Data
4.2.4 Level of corruption
0 – 100, 100 = least corrupt
EIU City Competitiveness Index
4.2.5 Rate of drug use
% of population estimated to be users
UN Office on Drugs and Crime
4.2.6 Frequency of terrorist attacks
Average annual attacks over last 10 years
Global Terrorism Database
4.2.7 Gender safety
Incidences of rape in latest year
Local data sources
4.2.8 Perceptions of safety
0 – 100, 100 = perceived as most safe
Numbeo
B. Outputs
39
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2015
While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy
of this information, The Economist Intelligence Unit
Ltd. cannot accept any responsibility or liability
for reliance by any person on this report or any of
the information, opinions or conclusions set out
in this report.
Cover image - ©Shutterstock
LONDON
20 Cabot Square
London
E14 4QW
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500
E-mail: [email protected]
NEW YORK
750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017, US
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
Fax: (1.212) 586 0248
E-mail: [email protected]
HONG KONG
6001, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
Fax: (852) 2802 7638
E-mail: [email protected]
GENEVA
Rue de l’Athénée 32
1206 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: (41) 22 566 2470
Fax: (41) 22 346 9347
E-mail: [email protected]